How do I add RAID drivers to an existing XP system?

[John]

I'm running Windows XP Pro SP3 on a system using an Intel D945GNT
motherboard. This motherboard has a chipset and BIOS which support RAID
1. I recently replaced my hard drives with a much larger pair of drives
and would like to setup a RAID 1 array. All the partitions from my old
drives have been transferred to one of the new drives, and the second
drive is empty.

The instructions for installing the RAID drivers say to start Windows
setup and press F6 when prompted to install a third party RAID driver
using the floppy which came with the motherboard.

This is fine if you are setting up a new system from scratch and haven't
yet installed Windows XP. What I need to know is how to install the RAID
drivers on an existing Windows XP system. Thanks!

John

 

[DL]

A repair install of winxp, using F6 option when prompted
(The winxp cd will need to be same sp level as current)

 

[John]

A repair install of winxp, using F6 option when prompted
(The winxp cd will need to be same sp level as current)

Right off the bat there's a problem. I don't have a CD that is SP3. I
think my CD is SP1 and I installed SP2 and SP3 using Windows Update.

If I can overcome that, possibly by creating a slipstream CD, do I have
to run the repair install to completion? Won't that wipe out all my post
SP3 updates? It seems like there ought to be an easier way to do this.

John

 

[DL]

You create a slipstreamed winxp installation containing latest sp

 

[Daave]

DL then added:

You create a slipstreamed winxp installation containing latest sp

Yes...

But, John, you are correct. If you run a Repair install, even if it is
at the SP3 level, any post-SP3 updates will need to be reinstalled. Then
again, you could always slipstream *those* updates as well so you
wouldn't need to reinstall them.

 

[Andrew E.]

A reinstall or repair of xp is not needed to set up RAID 1...RAID 0 would
need reinstallation but not 1.Simply set youre BIOS to enable RAID,if you
use IDE hds,then that to must be configured in the BIOS..After BIOS,then
configure the RAID set in the RAID set up post after the BIOS.Once thru & in
xp,
you must install the Matrix storage software from intel.If you havent already
install the chipset installation utility before Matrix,a restart isnt
needed after
chipset install.Once both are installed,then youre thru,Matrix will install
the
data to other hd auto.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I'm running Windows XP Pro SP3 on a system using an Intel D945GNT
motherboard. This motherboard has a chipset and BIOS which support RAID
1. I recently replaced my hard drives with a much larger pair of drives
and would like to setup a RAID 1 array.

Why do you want RAID 1?

RAID 1 (mirroring) uses two or more drives, each a duplicate of the
others, to provide redundancy. It's used in situations where any
downtown can't be tolerated (almost always in business situations, not
in homes), because the way it works is that if one drive fails the
other takes over seamlessly. Although some people thing of RAID 1 as a
backup technique, that is *not* what it is, since it's subject to
simultaneous loss of the original and the mirror to many of the most
common dangers threatening your data--severe power glitches, nearby
lightning strikes, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc.Most
companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan in
place.

See "Why RAID is (usually) a Terrible Idea" at
http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29

 

[John]

Hi Ken,

Thanks for your response. My system was running two Seagate 160GB SATA
drives, both of which were four years old. I had a corruption of the C:
partition on the primary drive from which I was unable to recover, in
spite of trying to do so using both Winternals ERD Commander and Media
Tools Professional. I restored from a recent Ghost backup and got the
system running again with minimal loss of data but decided the drive
could no longer be trusted.

I have a RAID 1 capable motherboard, and the price of very large drives
has become very reasonable, so that's why I decided to go that way.
Amazon had Seagate 1.5 TB SATA drives for $89 at the time and I bought
two of them.

I use Ghost to backup my C: partition frequently, but this was still a
huge pain to deal with. I have good surge protection and a UPS. I'm
running good virus and malware protection programs and I'm careful about
where I go and what I do on the internet.

Do you still think I am just as likely to experience a failure of both
drives in the RAID array as a failure of just one? If that's true, why
would anyone use RAID 1?

I'm still looking for an authoritative answer to my original question.
You are the first MVP who has chimed in on this, so I'm hoping you might
have the info I need.

Regards,

John

I'm running Windows XP Pro SP3 on a system using an Intel D945GNT
motherboard. This motherboard has a chipset and BIOS which support RAID
1. I recently replaced my hard drives with a much larger pair of drives
and would like to setup a RAID 1 array.

Why do you want RAID 1?

RAID 1 (mirroring) uses two or more drives, each a duplicate of the
others, to provide redundancy. It's used in situations where any
downtown can't be tolerated (almost always in business situations, not
in homes), because the way it works is that if one drive fails the
other takes over seamlessly. Although some people thing of RAID 1 as a
backup technique, that is *not* what it is, since it's subject to
simultaneous loss of the original and the mirror to many of the most
common dangers threatening your data--severe power glitches, nearby
lightning strikes, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc.Most
companies that use RAID 1 also have a strong external backup plan in
place.

See "Why RAID is (usually) a Terrible Idea" at
http://www.pugetsystems.com/articles?&id=29

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hi Ken,

Thanks for your response. My system was running two Seagate 160GB SATA
drives, both of which were four years old. I had a corruption of the C:
partition on the primary drive from which I was unable to recover, in
spite of trying to do so using both Winternals ERD Commander and Media
Tools Professional. I restored from a recent Ghost backup and got the
system running again with minimal loss of data but decided the drive
could no longer be trusted.

I have a RAID 1 capable motherboard, and the price of very large drives
has become very reasonable, so that's why I decided to go that way.
Amazon had Seagate 1.5 TB SATA drives for $89 at the time and I bought
two of them.

OK, but if were me, I would install only one in the computer, and the
other one in an external USB case, which I would use for backup.

I use Ghost to backup my C: partition frequently,

Back it up to *what*?

but this was still a huge pain to deal with.

But if your data is important to you, then it's worth the pain.

I have good surge protection and a UPS.

Good, but they will protect you against some electrical events, not
all. A nearby lightning strike can still wipe you out.

I'm
running good virus and malware protection programs

Exactly which programs do you run? If they *are* good, they will
reduce the risk, but not eliminate it.

and I'm careful about
where I go and what I do on the internet.

Good. That too *reduces* the risk.

Do you still think I am just as likely to experience a failure of both
drives in the RAID array as a failure of just one? If that's true, why
would anyone use RAID 1?

No, I never suggested that simultaneous drive failure was the danger.
What I said (quoted below) was "Although some people thing of RAID 1
as a backup technique, that is *not* what it is, since it's subject to
simultaneous loss of the original and the mirror to many of the most
common dangers threatening your data--severe power glitches, nearby
lightning strikes, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc."

I'm still looking for an authoritative answer to my original question.
You are the first MVP who has chimed in on this, so I'm hoping you might
have the info I need.

Regards,

John

 

[John]

OK, but if were me, I would install only one in the computer, and the
other one in an external USB case, which I would use for backup.

Why do you feel this is a better solution than a RAID 1 array?

I could do this assuming I can find an external USB case which supports
a SATA drive. I haven't researched this.

Back it up to *what*?

A Seagate 360GB external USB HD.

But if your data is important to you, then it's worth the pain.

Of course, but I'd like to prevent a repeat of this sort of failure if
possible.

Exactly which programs do you run? If they *are* good, they will
reduce the risk, but not eliminate it.

Currently I have Avira Anti-Vir Personal, Windows Defender,
Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, and Ad-Aware v8.1.3 running on this system.

I'm evaluating Microsoft Security Essentials on another system and may
eventually use it in place of Avira and Windows Defender. It's not clear
to me if Microsoft Security Essentials will replace the functionality of
Malwarebytes and Ad-Aware.

What I still need to know is how to install the Intel RAID drivers on an
existing Windows XP system without re-installing the OS.

Regards,

John

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Why do you feel this is a better solution than a RAID 1 array?

If you would read what I've already written twice in this thread, you
would know the answer to that question. I won't repeat myself again.

 

[John]

Hi Ken,

If you would read what I've already written twice in this thread, you
would know the answer to that question. I won't repeat myself again.

I've carefully read what you wrote before. Your principal objection to a
RAID 1 system seems to be that some might use it as a substitute for
doing frequent backups to an external drive. I agree that this would be
a bad idea.

I already do frequent backups and I intend to continue to do so. That
being the case, I don't see why also having a RAID 1 array is a bad idea.

Are there issues with keeping a RAID 1 system performing correctly which
are not immediately apparent? Does it slow down the system to a
significant degree? Or do you just think it's a good idea to not
introduce unnecessary complexity into a system?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just want to better understand
your point of view. I have great respect for the knowledge of the MVP
community. Thanks for your responses and your time.

Regards,

John

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hi Ken,



I've carefully read what you wrote before. Your principal objection to a
RAID 1 system seems to be that some might use it as a substitute for
doing frequent backups to an external drive. I agree that this would be
a bad idea.

Good, I'm glad you agree.

I already do frequent backups and I intend to continue to do so. That
being the case, I don't see why also having a RAID 1 array is a bad idea.

Because, if you are not using it as a substitute for backups and you
are not running a company for which having redundancy is critical, I
see no value in having RAID 1.

Are there issues with keeping a RAID 1 system performing correctly which
are not immediately apparent? Does it slow down the system to a
significant degree?

It writes everything twice. I can't tell you exactly how much that
slows you down, but it has to have some negative effect.

Or do you just think it's a good idea to not
introduce unnecessary complexity into a system?

I'm against it for two reasons and two half reasons:

1. The purpose of RAID 1 is to provide redundancy for companies that
can't afford to be down for any length of time. Home users almost
never fall into that category,

2. Most home users who use RAID 1 use it because they think of it as a
good, and easy-to-use backup system. It isn't.

Those are the two important reasons. The half reasons are...


2.5. It will provide at least some negative effect on performance.

2.75. It doubles the cost of your disk drives with no benefit.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just want to better understand
your point of view. I have great respect for the knowledge of the MVP
community. Thanks for your responses and your time.

OK, you're welcome, and I apologize for incorrectly assuming that you
were trying to give me a hard time.